Montgomery v. Jackson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
TAVARES MONTGOMERY, SR. 	PLAINTIFF
100326
V. 	NO. 4:25-cv-01042-KGB-ERE
JACKSON and
REDDICK 	DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I. 	Procedure for Filing Objections:
This Recommendation for the dismissal of Mr. Montgomery’s complaint has
been sent to United States District Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file
written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. Any objections filed must:
(1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for the objection; and (2) be
received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Recommendation. If you do not object, you risk waiving the right to appeal questions
of fact.
II. 	Background
Pro se plaintiff Tavares Montgomery, Sr., a pre-trial detainee at the W.C.
Brassell Adult Detention Center (“Detention Center”), filed this civil rights lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 2.
Case 4:25-cv-01042-KGB Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Mr. Montgomery’s complaint alleges that Defendant Sergeant Reddick seized
an Islamic headdress from him during a shake down. He explains that he notified
Defendant Captain Jackson about the missing property, and she told him that that
the headdress would be returned to him. However, Detention Center staff have failed
to return the headdress to him. He sues Defendants Reddick and Jackson in both
their individual and official capacities seeking monetary damages.
On October 8, 2025, I entered an Order explaining why the original complaint
was deficient but giving Mr. Montgomery the opportunity to file an amended
complaint. Doc. 4.
To date, Mr. Montgomery has not filed an amended complaint, and the time
to do so has passed. As a result, I will screen Mr. Montgomery’s original complaint,
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
III. 	Discussion:
A. 	Standard
To survive § 1915A screening, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft 	v. 	Iqbal, 	556 	U.S. 	662, 	678 	(2009) 	(explaining 	that 	“labels 	and
conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” and
“naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are insufficient to plead a
§ 1983 claim; and instead, a prisoner must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
Case 4:25-cv-01042-KGB Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 6

3
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”); see also Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
In deciding whether Mr. Montgomery has stated a plausible claim for relief
under § 1983, the Court must determine whether the allegations in the complaint,
which are presumed true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A
complaint cannot simply “[leave] open the possibility that a plaintiff might later
establish some ‘set of undisclosed facts’ to support recovery.” 	Id. at 561 (citation
omitted). Rather, the facts set forth in the complaint must “nudge [the] claims across
the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 570.
B. 	Personal Property – Due Process Claim
It is well settled that an inmate cannot maintain a Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim for loss of property if he has an adequate post-deprivation remedy
under state law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533–36 (1984); Parratt v.
Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 (1981); McClinton v. Arkansas Dept. of Corr., 166 F.
App’x 260, 260–61 (8th Cir. 2006). Here, Mr. Montgomery has an adequate remedy
under Arkansas law because he can seek to recover his property by filing a
conversion action in state court. See Bausley v. Dugan, 110 F. App’x 736, 736 (8th
Cir. 2004) (holding that a prisoner could not bring a § 1983 claim against county jail
employees for seizure of personal property because he could bring a conversion
Case 4:25-cv-01042-KGB Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 6

4
action against them in state court); Carniglia v. Dearmon, 16 F. App’x 548, 549 (8th
Cir. 2001) (same); Butler v. Smith, 208 F.3d 217, 217 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that
prisoner, who alleged he was wrongly charged for meals while housed at the county
jail, could not seek § 1983 relief because he could bring a conversion in state court).
The facts alleged in the current complaint fail to state a plausible due process
claim.
C. 	First Amendment Free Exercise Claim
To state a plausible free exercise claim under the First Amendment, a
complaint must contain facts suggesting officials substantially burdened a prisoner’s
sincerely held religious beliefs. Mbonyunkiza v. Beasley, 956 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th
Cir. 2020); Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2008). To
constitute a “substantial burden,” the defendant’s actions must:
significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests
some central tenet of a person’s individual religious beliefs; must
meaningfully curtail a person’s ability to express adherence to his or
her faith; or must deny a person reasonable opportunities to engage in
those activities that are fundamental to a person’s religion.
Patel, 515 F.3d at 813.
The facts alleged in the current complaint fail to state a plausible First
Amendment free exercise claim.
Case 4:25-cv-01042-KGB Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 6

5
D. 	Official Capacity Claims
Under the law, Mr. Montgomery’s official capacity claims are treated as
claims against Jefferson County. Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir.
2018). Jefferson County cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the acts
of county employees. Id. at 800-01 (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978)).
Generally, Jefferson County is not legally responsible for constitutional
violations committed by its employees but may be subject to § 1983 liability when
its 	county 	policies, 	customs, 	or 	practices 	cause 	a 	constitutional 	violation.
Brewington, 902 F.3d at 801-02; Corwin v. City of Independence, Missouri, 829 F.3d
695, 699-700 (8th Cir. 2016).
Mr. Montgomery’s complaint contains no factual allegations suggesting that
a Jefferson County policy, practice, or custom caused his injury. 	As a result, the
facts alleged in the current complaint fail to state plausible official capacity claims
against Defendants.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons explained above,
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Mr. Montgomery’s complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for
failure to state a plausible constitutional claim for relief.
Case 4:25-cv-01042-KGB Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 6

6
2. 	In the future, this dismissal be considered a “strike” for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. 	The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal
would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.
4. 	The Clerk be directed to close this case.
DATED 18 November 2025
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01042-KGB Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 6